TwiceBaked, first and foremost, UALs planes are oversold all the time, second, just b/c your planes are full DOES NOT mean that you are making money on that flght. How many times do people have to go through AIRLINE 101 to understand that? Let me repeat, just b/c your plane is full does not mean it makes money... If that were the case our ailines would be pulling in record profits, and as you can see, US and the rest did just that last quarter, LOL... Anyway, I have a feeling anyone that merges with US will immediately pull down PHX and LAS to raise fares in that area, think of a semi-PIT in those areas, slash duplicate routes and build the intl. presence... That is one thing that US brings to the table, the ability to start slashing domestic capacity and raising fares in low fare areas and duplicate routes..
CO backs out of merger, UA/US deal still on?
- Thread starter Elevation
- Start date
TwiceBaked, first and foremost, UALs planes are oversold all the time, second, just b/c your planes are full DOES NOT mean that you are making money on that flght. How many times do people have to go through AIRLINE 101 to understand that? Let me repeat, just b/c your plane is full does not mean it makes money... If that were the case our ailines would be pulling in record profits, and as you can see, US and the rest did just that last quarter, LOL... Anyway, I have a feeling anyone that merges with US will immediately pull down PHX and LAS to raise fares in that area, think of a semi-PIT in those areas, slash duplicate routes and build the intl. presence... That is one thing that US brings to the table, the ability to start slashing domestic capacity and raising fares in low fare areas and duplicate routes..
Where did you get the idea UA is flying around empty planes? Load factors are high everywhere.
The capacity "problem" is that there is too much capacity to fill with profitable fares. All airlines are having this problem at the moment. Just because planes are full doesn't mean capacity doesn't need to be cut. Cutting capacity means the remaining capacity will be filled with people willing to pay higher fares. There is certainly a need to do that.
deltawatch
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 887
- 0
phasersonstun2
Veteran
- May 1, 2003
- 560
- 4
I'm not quite ready for a US/UA merger. I think I need a bottle of wine to think it over!
This is a job. I could care less who's name is on the side of my airplane anymore. Too much wasted energy. I will spend that time making sure my family is OK. Just pay me properly and everything else will take care of itself.
flyguy121
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 360
- 0
Found these comments, sad but SO TRUE!
"An LCC/UA merger is like two one-legged people trying to dance together."
or this one:
"Isn't an LCC/UA merger a little like two bitter old divorcees who lost touch with their kids years ago, have lots of debt, hang out in bad hotel bars and end up getting married to save on the rent?"
Hysterical! And yet sad at the same time.
Personally, I think LCC would remain stronger alone, UA is a sinking ship (or at least sinking a hell of a lot faster than LCC).
"An LCC/UA merger is like two one-legged people trying to dance together."
or this one:
"Isn't an LCC/UA merger a little like two bitter old divorcees who lost touch with their kids years ago, have lots of debt, hang out in bad hotel bars and end up getting married to save on the rent?"
Hysterical! And yet sad at the same time.
Personally, I think LCC would remain stronger alone, UA is a sinking ship (or at least sinking a hell of a lot faster than LCC).
D
delta777
Guest
So which hub wins out between IAD and CLT?
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
- Aug 17, 2005
- 2,873
- 18
Hubs
PHX can kiss International service goodbye. SFO and LAX will be the Pacific gateway. Mostly PHX will see a deduction in flights.
LAS already being downsized
DEN will remain the same.
ORD saying they'll be cutting flights here would be the stupidest move ever in any Business, the only way if DOT poses limits.
IAD and PHL will remain at levels the currently are, such as a LAX-SFO ops.
CLT is a tough one, could go either way. It could be built up for Carribean, but with IAD/PHL, it makes it a difficult decision.
PHX/DEN could work hand in hand, maybe ramp up service to DEN APR-OCT and ramp up PHX NOV-MAR.
IAD and PHL I don't see them cutting, too much money invested there. PHL I could see a downplay in the Express, would free up airspace and congestion. DCA and LGA will have to lose flights for this to get approved. LGA sell off to AA and DCA to DL/NW. Air Tran would want DCA as jetBlue would want LGA. LGA and DCA service would only have to be to the Hubs. Who would be under control of the airline? And HQ will have to remain in Chicago.
This is just my .02 cents, my opinion.
PHX can kiss International service goodbye. SFO and LAX will be the Pacific gateway. Mostly PHX will see a deduction in flights.
LAS already being downsized
DEN will remain the same.
ORD saying they'll be cutting flights here would be the stupidest move ever in any Business, the only way if DOT poses limits.
IAD and PHL will remain at levels the currently are, such as a LAX-SFO ops.
CLT is a tough one, could go either way. It could be built up for Carribean, but with IAD/PHL, it makes it a difficult decision.
PHX/DEN could work hand in hand, maybe ramp up service to DEN APR-OCT and ramp up PHX NOV-MAR.
IAD and PHL I don't see them cutting, too much money invested there. PHL I could see a downplay in the Express, would free up airspace and congestion. DCA and LGA will have to lose flights for this to get approved. LGA sell off to AA and DCA to DL/NW. Air Tran would want DCA as jetBlue would want LGA. LGA and DCA service would only have to be to the Hubs. Who would be under control of the airline? And HQ will have to remain in Chicago.
This is just my .02 cents, my opinion.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
There would be no need for UA+LCC to divest any NYC assets.
DCA/IAD, maybe. Eventually, the whole DCA/PHL/IAD proximity will probably be rationalized, somehow.
Finding a way to reduce small craft in congested markets is key.
DCA/IAD, maybe. Eventually, the whole DCA/PHL/IAD proximity will probably be rationalized, somehow.
Finding a way to reduce small craft in congested markets is key.
Pacemaker
Senior
- Sep 3, 2002
- 475
- 0
PHX/LAS hubs reduced or eliminated
PHL hub somewhat redundant because of IAD & reduced
CLT hub reduced/eliminated
Assets @ DCA/LGA divested
What's the point?
Not picking on you BuffaloJoe, rather it raises a serious question for any potential aquirer - why buy US Airways whole?
deltawatch
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 887
- 0
MY guess ....
CLT HUB (will rival ATL)
ORD HUB
DEN HUB
PHL HUB
LGA / DCA / BOS large focus cities
PHX / LAS focus cities
SFO / LAX BIG focus cities with international flying
IAD downsized, becomes nothing more than a destination
CLT HUB (will rival ATL)
ORD HUB
DEN HUB
PHL HUB
LGA / DCA / BOS large focus cities
PHX / LAS focus cities
SFO / LAX BIG focus cities with international flying
IAD downsized, becomes nothing more than a destination
Iheartflying
Advanced
- Jan 25, 2008
- 241
- 8
Giving up the shuttle would be a suprememly bad idea. It's a very big money maker.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
I'm sorry, but you are way off here. First of all UA's load factors are full. This has nothing to do with load factors. No one is able to make domestic flying profitable with oil at $120 per barrel and ticket prices far below where they need to be, even with high load factors. That's the reason for domestic capacity reductions. Doing so doesn't improve load factors, but changes the supply and demand picture which increases pricing power. The money is in international destinations, where the economies are better and people actually want to travel to the USA to take advantage of the weak dollar. The rest of the money is in the pit of long haul lift capability of 747's and 777's in the form of cargo. Flying lots of small airplanes around the US with no cargo and tons of passengers who surf the internet for the lowest price does nothing to fix the problems facing all airlines, unless those passengers are funneling into international flights..
Adding a huge international fleet would be a huge benefit for US. Adding 9 A330's does nothing for UA.
UA has the tools and assets to go it alone and grow from within. What they need is good management, not more domestic feed.
flyJOE
Advanced
CLT - I can't see CLT being reduced. The South/Southeast is an area where UA really lacks. UA would not be successful in getting pax from ILM, AVL, SAV, GNV, etc.. to fly to IAD to go west. With the increase in travel time to go north to go west, it would be completely handing the South to DL via ATL and giving DL a reason not to close MEM. IAD would work well for TATL feed. With CLT only having 3 TATL routes (counting LH's MUC flight), those likely aren't at risk, but no major TATL growth either.
DEN - I was in DEN for a few years, so I know how busy DEN is in the summer, but you wouldn't pull down DEN traffic from Nov through Mar. It's big time skiing season there from Dec-Mar. DEN is as safe as ORD & SFO.
PHX - This could be a tough one. Likely, PHX turns into a strong focus city for UA with service to hubs & a few other cities like NYC, BOS, SEA, MCO, where O&D can handle it. With Southwest already having more O&D than US, the long term survival of a UA hub there is very doubtful. All of the traffic from BFL, ONT, TUS, works very well through DEN.
PHL - Definitely a question mark. I saw another post that said a major reduction in Express service. This makes great sense. The question is what existing TATL service gets moved to IAD. I don't think IAD could handle it all.
LGA - There's no way UA gives up LGA slots. Access to NYC was one of the reasons why UA wanted to shack up with CO. With all of the slots US has at LGA, it could be a very healthy focus city chock full of mainline & E170/E190s. It would also make UA a big player in all of the top east coast markets (BOS, LGA, PHL, IAD, CLT) north of ATL. Of course DCA will be drastically reduced.
My .02 cents.
